Patna High Court
Ritesh NathversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to provisional anticipatory bail, subject to conditions and verification of his antecedent, as ownership of the vehicle alone does not constitute sufficient grounds for denial of bail.
Summary
The petitioner, Ritesh Nath, sought anticipatory bail after being implicated in a case under Sections 30(a) and 32(3) of the Bihar Excise Act for allegedly possessing 20.4 litres of liquor in his Hyundai Santro. He argued that the liquor was recovered from the vehicle, not from his personal possession, and that he had no knowledge of its misuse by a third party, Vinod. The State opposed the bail, contending that the vehicle’s ownership linked the petitioner to the offence. The Court, applying Section 482(2) of the BNSS, granted provisional anticipatory bail on the condition of a Rs. 500 bail bond with two sureties, subject to verification of the petitioner’s criminal antecedent. The order stipulated that if any prior case is discovered, the bail would not be confirmed; otherwise, it would be confirmed upon verification.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 482(2) of the BNSS in a case under the Bihar Excise Act.
- Whether ownership of the vehicle from which liquor was seized can be sufficient grounds for arrest and denial of bail.
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 482(2)
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- Bihar Excise Act
- Section 482
- vehicle seizure
- clean antecedent
- bail bond
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20482 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-99 Year-2022 Thana- GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL COMP.
District- Kishanganj
======================================================
Ritesh Nath S/o Surendra Nath Resident of village - A3/02D Swan Court,
Street No 622 Near Eco Park, Action Area11B, P.S.- New Town Action Area
2, District- North 24 Pargana, west Bengal
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Amal Kumar Sinha
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Arun Kumar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 31-03-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner apprehends his arrest in a case
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 30(a) and
32(3) of the Bihar Excise Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is a person with clean antecedent and allegation is of
recovery of 20.4 litres of liquor from from Hyundai Santro car.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner was not arrested from the spot as such nothing was
recovered from his conscious possession and he came to be
implicated based on the fact that he is owner of the seized
vehicle. It is next submitted that no prudent person would use
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20482 of 2026(2) dt.31-03-2026
2/3
his own vehicle for committing an occurrence and thus would
create evidence against himself and hence would get implicated,
it is further submitted that petitioner was completely unaware
that Vinod would misuse the vehicle in the manner as alleged,
who was also apprehended from the spot.
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State opposes the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the petitioner.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner above-named, in the
event of his arrest or surrender within a period of six weeks
from today, be released on Provisional anticipatory bail on
furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) with
two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of the
learned trial court where the case is pending/successor court in
connection with Special Case No. 228 of 2022 subject to the
conditions as laid down under Section 482(2) of the BNSS.
7. It is made clear that thereafter the learned Trial Court
shall verify the criminal antecedent of the petitioner and in the
event if it is found that petitioner has antecedent of even one case
then it would be presumed that petitioner, for the purposes of
seeking anticipatory bail, had concealed his antecedent before this
Court, as such, the provisional anticipatory bail order shall not be
confirmed, but after verification if it is found that petitioner is a
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20482 of 2026(2) dt.31-03-2026
3/3
person with clean antecedent in that event the provisional
anticipatory bail order shall be confirmed forthwith.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…